Sunday 26 February 2012

Sword at Sunset - Rosemary Sutcliff

(Chicago Review Press, 2008, 495 pages)

First published in 1963, Sword at Sunset is perhaps Rosemary Sutcliff’s best known adult novel, a vivid re-imagining of the myth that is King Arthur. Sutcliff strips away the medieval ‘romance’ here, instead drawing sparingly on Welsh tradition, and grounding her tale very much in the realities of the post-Roman era, as the inhabitants of Britain struggle against not just the rising tide of the Anglo-Saxon ‘Sea Wolves’ and their allies, but dangerous division amongst themselves.  
The story is narrated by Sutcliff’s Arthur, Artos, as he lies dying of a battle wound in the monastery of the Island of Apples, and takes us on a journey from his early years as the Count of Britain, the canny head of a roving warband whose purpose is to break Anglo-Saxon power in Britain, through to his election as High King and beyond. But the novel doesn’t charge straight into battle: Sutcliff starts slowly, building up a detailed sense of Artos’ world and his character, so that although I was unsure about him at first, I gradually came to respect, and then to like him. Artos makes a thoroughly believable post-Roman warleader, not above using trickery and threats – even towards his own people – if it allows him to further his cause; but although he has his flaws, he’s also very human: dogged and made vulnerable by a fateful encounter in his home hills, committed to his cause, afraid of the loneliness accompanying authority, and in many respects honest, decent and loyal, it’s easy to empathise with him, and of all the characters in the book, he was my favourite. Sutcliff said that she was more 'deeply involved' with this novel than any other, and described herself as 'living' as Artos during the time she was writing it, and it’s perhaps a mark of this involvement that whilst her style is very distinctive, I never felt I was listening to anyone other than Artos himself. Her other characters were well drawn, their natures often deftly conveyed by just a few well chosen words, and the relationships between them are emotionally powerful and compelling – especially between Artos and his two closest companions, Guenhumara and Bedwyr.  
The descriptions of surroundings and events are, as ever, detailed and vibrant, especially visually – the passages depicting sunsets stand out particularly – which leaves a strong impression of having actually experienced them. Sutcliff, from what I’ve read of her work so far, wasn’t one to shy away from describing bloodshed and cruelty either, and this novel is no exception: there are several images of gut-wrenching violence, although it’s never gratuitous. 
As might be expected given the novel’s grounding, there’s no real magic in this book – and no Merlin, either, for that matter – only a strong sense of Fate, the whims of which some people can discern, and others can’t. At first I felt that the way in which Artos picked up each of his companions along the way seemed somewhat neat and linear, but viewed as part of the current of Fate, it makes perfect sense.
My only real niggle with the novel was the portrayal of the Little Dark People, a semi-subterranean race of pygmy people (rather like the Picts of legend) with Neolithic aspects, which occasionally brought me up short. But if I’m honest, they eventually blended in with the rest of the tale, and it ended up seeming as if they always had.
Overall, a masterful imagining of who and what the original ‘King Arthur’ may have been, well written and with deft references to the old legends. Towards the beginning of the novel, Artos, when trying Ambrosius the High King’s sword, speaks of it being ‘perfectly balanced’. I think the same can be said of Rosemary Sutcliff’s tale.  

9 comments:

  1. Sword at Sunset is wonderful. It's one of my favourite retellings of the Arthurian legend, and a book I can read again and again and never get tired of.
    There used to be a romantic theory that the Picts spoke a non-Indo-European language, with a further theory that they were therefore some sort of remnant of a pre-Celtic culture that had been lost everywhere else in Europe, and were somehow therefore 'a people apart', uniquely mysterious. Rosemary Sutcliff may have been drawing on ideas like that when she developed the 'Little Dark People'. I think the tendency now is to view the Picts much more as a society on a par with their neighbours, which is probably more realistic but a good deal less romantic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a belated thank you for stopping by, Carla. (I really shouldn't post these comments so late; I forget half of what I'm supposed to say!)

      Delete
  2. I can see I'll probably be rereading it often, too, and I think it's fair to say that it's set a very high standard for Arthurian fiction for me! I agree, the idea that the Picts may have had Brittonic connections (at least some sort of Brittonic-based language) is fascinating, but not quite so much their being a slightly 'exotic' pre-Indo-European survival. You can see why people liked such a theory. I had no idea of the tradition of portraying the Picts as small, even elf-like beings until I read Sutcliff's novel, though!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, Sword at Sunset sets the bar for Arthurian fiction very high indeed. I always think of Rosemary Sutcliff's Artos now.

    Well, there are lots of traditions about pixies and elves and
    leprechauns and the like, and I can see how Rosemary Sutcliff's 'Little Dark People' could fit in to those traditions. I have a vague recollection that souterrains (underground tunnels) were once thought to be Pictish houses built for very small people, so that may be another thread. I think the tendency now is to see souterrains as a cross between underground storage and refuges/escape tunnels in the event of attack.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do like the fact that Sutcliff is continuing a tradition begun in at least the 12th century, with some Norwegian referring to the Picts living in small houses underground. Perhaps that's the souterrain connection? I hadn't come across the theory that souterrains could have been used as escape tunnels, but I do recall that Jacqui Wood's 'Prehistoric Cooking' book suggested their use for storing and maturing cheese. Which, being fond of cheese, I feel is as interesting as their being 'Pictish houses' - if rather less romantic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It may well have been. I was reading an article recently in Current Archaeology about souterrains as escape tunnels in Ireland. I'll see if I can find the reference. Cool storage for maturing cheese sounds entirely likely. Isn't Roquefort cheese still matured in caves now? I reckon cheese would have been a key protein source for the winter, so effective cheese storage would probably have been just as crucial to survival as an escape tunnel, albeit rather more mundane :-) The theories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive; there's no reason why an escape tunnel or refuge shouldn't be used to store provisions, and no reason why people wouldn't hide in the cheese cellar in the event of attack, and even escape through it if it happened to have been built with two entrances to ensure a through draught for air circulation.

    Edit: found the Current Archaeology article, it was in the February 2012 issue and is about souterrains in Ireland in the Viking period.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, Roquefort, and of course our own home-grown Cheddar, too. I like the idea of using the cheese store as a bolt hole. Thanks for looking up the article...pity I missed it - I remember looking at the magazine when it came out, but never bought it. Tut.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Might be worth asking your local library if they happen to carry it; you never know :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure about the local library, but I'll give Bristol Central a try, as if anyone's likely to have it round here, I think it'd be them. Thanks for the suggestion. :)

      Delete